Boards

Kidding. All in all, a pretty satisfying caucus (for me, anyway). Obama and Edwards both beat Clinton, with Obama a full 8% ahead of Edwards. Romney got creamed. McCain did poorly, which is good because he would probably be the toughest for Obama to beat. And Giuliani, who is a scumbag politician if there ever was one (hahahahahaha), got his ass handed to him.

I think Huckabee would possibly be quite tough to beat, more so than McCain. Which makes more sense as well; McCain's popularity has dwindled, which is of course a part of why he did so poorly in the caucus.

I don't know, I'm tired and my feet are still frozen. AND I'M EXCITED! I don't know how I will sleep tonight.

Which should also be taken into account for his failings in Iowa. But not too much, and I don't think I can see him winning overall. You never know, though; a good showing in NH could go towards further early state success.

for pandering to the evangelicals. If he had stuck with being moderate instead of flip-flopping, he'd have had a better chance.

Don't forget that Bill didn't win Iowa or New Hampshire either. But realistically, I think Hillary is already done for. But then again who knows; she's not going to give up easily, and I think she's well capable of bettering her campaign to suit this direction. She still worries me more than Edwards.

Oh god, the spin is already obnoxious and I have hardly witnessed any. Mainly just a bit on the TV and a few sentences from a reporter who was doing a live bit from the Obama HQ in Chicago and that was nothing.

You've mixed me up with someone else. But yeah, I agree. Supporters of candidates who didn't meet the threshold were undoubtedly a boon for Obama, probably more so than they were for the other two front-runners.

Speaking of Kucinich, he still hasn't officially dropped out of the race. But he only got around 1%, I think.

Yeah, I'm glad he's on Obama's side. I haven't heard/read anything on who Biden and Dodd are pulling for now, but I'm not all that concerned, to be honest. I could almost forget they're in the race (or were, anyway). Anyway, in the Iowa caucus, we already have a pretty good indicator of whom most of the lagging candidates' supporters will back instead.

I had totally forgotten this. Though it was constantly popping into my thoughts earlier this evening--I just can't decide who I like for VP. I dislike Clinton, I think she's more or less 100% politician, if you know what I mean, but she is very experienced. But I don't think an Obama/Clinton ticket is very plausible anyway; it's just not electable enough, likely. Somehow, though, I don't feel I can completely rule her out. Probably just because she is such a huge presence, though. Surely she's a definite no, no?

Beyond her, who knows. This race has surprised (<maybe not the right word) me too much for me to feel sure on any prediction. You?

But to expand: we've had people with experience before who have been unsatisfactory, and I think chances are Clinton will be one of these more than Obama would, even with his lack of experience. He's not going to be going it alone. He'll have his VP and his cabinet and his staff, etc. And I don't think Clinton could win, ultimately, whereas Obama could.

So how would a Clinton/Obama ticket get the Democrats the next four elections? (And you are including congressionals in that count, correct? Rather than the next 4 presidentials.)

I think it is his general incompetence and poor choices that have tired the voters. I don't think he has any actual concern for other people before himself. I don't think he ran for president because he actually cares; I think that's probably the last reason. He's the most wrong person you could dream of for the job. Obama's well different from Bush.

You make an excellent point about a post-VP Obama, though. But I still don't think a Clinton/Obama ticket would get elected. I think I'd like to think it would because *I* would vote for it over any of the Republican possibilities, and because I'm inclined to think a good campaign would overcome, but really, I don't actually see it happening.

Especially if it does end up being Obama v Huckabee as that'd pretty much be two of the most contrasting candidates imaginable.

Personally I very much hope McCain gets the Republican nomination. I don't agree with all this policies myself but he does seem to be a man whose believes are out of genuine intelligence and conviction and I can respect that. And, whilst I would hope the Republicans wouldn't win, I wouldn't have a huge problem with him being president of the US.

On the Democrat side I'd like Obama or Edwards to get it. Not a big fan of Clinton - so far haven't managed to get any kind of grasp of what, if anything, she actually stands for.

i apologise. But i was speaking about the UK as an apathetic whole really, and not getting to choose from more than a couple of folk isn't an excuse not to care. It's even worse not to care if you're genuinely interested in American affairs, just cos the bits on the telly show theirs to encompass more global issues doesn't make our own any less signifant. It's half-hearted and it shows folk up as people who like to pretend they care about important stuff. Again, not just you (soz about that).

would that mean that the most powerful nation in the world has been effectively ruled by just TWO families over the last quarter of a century? And, if looking into the future she was re-elected again, this would make it almost 30 years under just the Bush and Clinton clans

Absolutely. 'Cos America's one of the most racist and brutal dictatorships in the world. Or more accurately a flawed liberal democracy but a liberal democracy nonetheless. And, let's face it, a damn sight closer to having a non-white leader than Britain or most nations of Europe (largely due to its larger non-white population of course). So I'm not sure where the "of all places" really fits.

Given South Africa voted in a non-white leader, I'd say it shows anything's possible.

I'm just questioning the idea of America "of all places" having a black leader would be incredible. It would be a good thing for the best person for the job, regardless of their colour, to get voted President.

But, while racism and inequality undoubtedly exists in America, it's wrong to believe it's one of the most racist countries in the world. Of course the fact there's a significant non-white popularity inflames tensions and there are parts of America where racism is a massive issue.

But nonetheless, unlike many countries in the world, it's a country where racism is widely believed to be wrong and is frowned upon when it does occur, and a country which has various policies, measures and structures in place to deal with racism (which is more than can be said for countries that either don't acknowledge problems with racism or even don't see racism as a problem).

And, yes, I'm sure you can come back at me with various statistics about glass ceilings for non-whites and incidents such as Rodney King etc. but the very fact that there is such an outcry about these things in a way speaks volumes about America as a society and shows that, whilst racism exists, it is not something which is accepted.

Nobody's saying Obama's colour is not an issue and that there will be a significant minority that won't vote for him on the basis of his colour. But to imply (as the "of all places" seemed to do) that America's a significantly more racist society than in many other countries doesn't really seem to be born out in the facts.

that there area actually people who legally change their names in order to get elected when they run for office? Like judges, whom no one researches anyway and get votes just because of their names, will change their names to something Irish or Italian sounding, something like that. I read an article on it somewhere years ago, probably in the Chicago Tribune in journalism class.

as it is that people are lazy and pick based on name, and there happen to be a lot of Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans. If you saw a surname the same as yours or an relative's on the ballot, it would catch your eye, and then you may as well vote for it as any other, if you've got no actual preference.

People who claim that America is a racist society are idiots. The fact that racism exists there proves nothing, racism exists everywhere.

In many ways America has less of a problem with race relations than Britain.

The thing I admire most about the USA is the way in which people are taught that before anything else, before religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation or 'hyphenated grouping' (Irish-American, German-American, Polish-American, etc) that they are Americans first and foremost.

Americans realise the importance of celebrating the common ground between the diverse mixture of peoples who form their population.

By way of contrast, In Britain well meaning, but, ultimately stupid bleeding heart liberals have inadvertantly fostered segregation and a self-imposed ghetto mentality by encouraging people to focus on their differences.

It was no surpise that the first Western nation to export suicide bombers (Mike's Bar, Tel Aviv Israel) and to have it's own citizens launch a suicide attack on their own people (7/7 and various failed attempts since) was Britain.

My point was that they have inadvertantly fostered the conditions under which segregation has occurred under the umbrella of 'diversity'. One result of this has been that a minority of British citizens have come to regard their own country as at best the place they live rather than the place that they belong and at worst their enemy.

If you had actually read my post you would know that, but, obviously you're incapable of grasping relatively simple concepts.

I read your post, and your argument was that the main cause of 7/7 was liberal approaches to multiculturalism.

"Bleeding heart liberals" (who are these people?) hold no real power in this country, and certainly don't devise its foreign policy and race relations. Segregation has been caused by abiding poverty, polarisation in the Third World, and the fact that this country's policy towards immigration has ALWAYS been tolerance, not acceptance.

but not entirely different to Alex-in-Ciderland's point about fostering segregation. In the course of encouraging people to be proud of being an American, this obviously does involve a great degree of acceptance and saying "hey, we want you to be one of us" rather than "well you live there if you like but we won't actually talk to" (which is closer to the British attitude).

The Liberal Left in England holds a great deal of psychological power. It doesn't devise foreign policy or race relations policy but it does play a huge role in influencing the moral beliefs and concepts of what is right and wrong in this country. Essentially progress on racism, sexism, political correctness etc. was due to the influence on the moral beliefs the liberal left intelligensia had on attitudes of politicians, teachers, lecturers, lawyers and various other people of influence.

The phrase "bleeding heart liberals" irritates me in the same way "political correctness gone mad" and "council jobsworths" do. Such sources have only indirect power, and you can only talk about their influences on society in non-concrete terms, which suits the agencies of latent Thatcherites- obviously such things do exist, and thanks to their ephemeral nature you can attribute just about anything to them without looking at the real roots of problems such as terrorism and racial segregation.

a belief in the importance of culutral relativism (often leading to the defence racist, sexist and homophobic behaviours in non-Western societies on the grounds that we can't judge others by our own standards and a refusal to act against dictators and genocide)

and a misguided notion that any enemy of American Imperialism is a friend of the left (leading to a failure to condemn Al Quaeda as the vicious homophobic racist misogynistic bullies they really are)

are both factors that have helped to fuel the War on Terror in their own way. I'm not claiming that the there are not other factors in the War on Terror that the 'right' are responsible for (flagrant dishonesty from Bush and Blair re the reasons to invade Iraq, furthering Capitalist interests at the expense of others, a 'pick and choose' attitude to which dicators to condemn and which to work with etc.) but I don't think historically either left nor right will be able to look back on the causes of the rise of Al Quaeda and the events of the War on Teror with a great deal of pride.

Giuliani is going to come back strong once he actually starts spending money? Same with McCain. They're both saving for Florida and California, the big ones. It might backfire but I don't quite think they're out of this yet.